6 replies to this topic

[Rob Bowman]

In his opening post in the thread entitled “On Inerrancy,” maklelan cites the account of Micaiah’s confrontation with Ahab in 1 Kings 22 as an example of the errancy of the Bible. “For instance, in 1 Kings 22 God approves of and commands a divine assembly plan to send a ‘lying spirit’ to Ahab to lead him off to his death. That is thus a God-inspired lie.” Is this correct?

  Let’s start by quoting the text:

  

Quote

And the messenger who went to summon Micaiah said to him, “Behold, the words of the prophets with one accord are favorable to the king. Let your word be like the word of one of them, and speak favorably.” ¹⁴ But Micaiah said, “As the LORD lives, what the LORD says to me, that I will speak.”

  ¹⁵And when he had come to the king, the king said to him, “Micaiah, shall we go to Ramoth-gilead to battle, or shall we refrain?” And he answered him, “Go up and triumph; the LORD will give it into the hand of the king.” ¹⁶ But the king said to him, “How many times shall I make you swear that you speak to me nothing but the truth in the name of the LORD?” ¹⁷ And he said, “I saw all Israel scattered on the mountains, as sheep that have no shepherd. And the LORD said, ‘These have no master; let each return to his home in peace.’” ¹⁸ And the king of Israel said to Jehoshaphat, “Did I not tell you that he would not prophesy good concerning me, but evil?”

  ¹⁹ And Micaiah said, “Therefore hear the word of the LORD: I saw the LORD sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing beside him on his right hand and on his left; ²⁰ and the LORD said, ‘Who will entice Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?’ And one said one thing, and another said another. ²¹ Then a spirit came forward and stood before the LORD, saying, ‘I will entice him.’ ²² And the LORD said to him, ‘By what means?’ And he said, ‘I will go out, and will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ And he said, ‘You are to entice him, and you shall succeed; go out and do so.’ ²³ Now therefore behold, the LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; the LORD has declared disaster for you.”

  ²⁴ Then Zedekiah the son of Chenaanah came near and struck Micaiah on the cheek and said, “How did the Spirit of the LORD go from me to speak to you?” ²⁵ And Micaiah said, “Behold, you shall see on that day when you go into an inner chamber to hide yourself.” ²⁶ And the king of Israel said, “Seize Micaiah, and take him back to Amon the governor of the city and to Joash the king’s son, ²⁷ and say, ‘Thus says the king, “Put this fellow in prison and feed him meager rations of bread and water, until I come in peace.”‘“ ²⁸ And Micaiah said, “If you return in peace, the LORD has not spoken by me.” And he said, “Hear, all you peoples!” (1Kings 22:13-28 ESV)

  The book of Chronicles contains the same account in almost identical wording (2 Chron. 18:12-27). What minor differences in wording there are have no bearing on the theological question at hand.

  First, let’s acknowledge not only that the Bible contains this report—twice—but that this is not an isolated incident. The Bible contains several examples of statements indicating that an evil, lying, or hurtful spirit was from God:

  

Quote

“Then God sent an evil spirit between Abimelech and the men of Shechem; and the men of Shechem dealt treacherously with Abimelech, so that the violence done to the seventy sons of Jerubbaal might come, and their blood might be laid on Abimelech their brother, who killed them, and on the men of Shechem, who strengthened his hands to kill his brothers” (Judges 9:23-24 NASB).

  “Now the Spirit of the LORD departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD terrorized him. Saul’s servants then said to him, ‘Behold now, an evil spirit from God is terrorizing you. Let our lord now command your servants who are before you. Let them seek a man who is a skillful player on the harp; and it shall come about when the evil spirit from God is on you, that he shall play the harp with his hand, and you will be well.’ …So it came about whenever the evil spirit from God came to Saul, David would take the harp and play it with his hand; and Saul would be refreshed and be well, and the evil spirit would depart from him” (1 Sam. 16:14-16, 23 NASB).

  “Now it came about on the next day that an evil spirit from God came mightily upon Saul, and he raved in the midst of the house, while David was playing the harp with his hand, as usual; and a spear was in Saul's hand” (1 Sam. 18:10 NASB).

  “Now there was an evil spirit from the LORD on Saul as he was sitting in his house with his spear in his hand, and David was playing the harp with his hand” (1Sam. 19:9 NASB).

  “So the servants of King Hezekiah came to Isaiah. Isaiah said to them, ‘Thus you shall say to your master, “Thus says the LORD, ‘Do not be afraid because of the words that you have heard, with which the servants of the king of Assyria have blasphemed Me. Behold, I will put a spirit in him so that he will hear a rumor and return to his own land. And I will make him fall by the sword in his own land’”’” (2 Kings 19:5-7 NASB).

  “The LORD has mixed within her a spirit of distortion; They have led Egypt astray in all that it does, As a drunken man staggers in his vomit” (Isa 19:14 NASB).

  “Behold, I will put a spirit in him so that he will hear a rumor and return to his own land. And I will make him fall by the sword in his own land” (Isa 37:7 NASB).

  Whatever we make of these passages, it is clear that we are dealing with more than an isolated text that might have been miscopied or garbled. The Old Testament, especially in the so-called Deuteronomic history (Joshua through 2 Kings), contains several statements that fall within this same general category of references to evil or lying spirits that are said to have been in some sense from God.

  Second, we should note that this same history contains at least one statement that that denies that God lies:

  

Quote

“Also the Glory of Israel will not lie or change His mind; for He is not a man that He should change His mind” (1 Sam. 15:29 NASB).

  Notice that this statement comes in the same context as the report in chapter 16 that the Spirit of the LORD left Saul and was replaced by an evil spirit “from” the LORD. If we are trying to understand what the book of Samuel is saying, we need to take both types of statements into account. It would be ad hoc to assume they represent different sources. It would be a form of lazy reading to assume without further ado that they are unthinkingly contradictory. Whoever put the book together so that these statements in 15:29 and 16:14 stand so close together did not see a problem.

  Third, if we read through all of these texts in their contexts, we will see consistently that the point being made is that God sovereignly works things out to bring judgment on evildoers among his people. For example, half of the passages quoted above pertain to God’s judgment on Saul, who had turned out to be a bad king. The evil or lying spirits lead people to do bad things, and the consequence is that those people or others hurt by them get what they deserve. In none of these passages does God have an evil or deceiving spirit lead righteous, humble, or sincere people into a trap.

  Fourth, in the account of Micaiah’s prophecy, it is made clear that God is not trying to hide anything from Ahab. After all, Micaiah tells Ahab about the lying spirit and warns him of the consequences of listening to it! If God was trying to deceive Ahab, why would he reveal this fact to Ahab?

  Fifth, in the broader context of these historical books, something bad or harmful is said to be “from the LORD” if he uses it to accomplish his purposes. For example, the history tells us that Rehoboam’s unwise decision not to lighten the people’s burden, as they had asked, was “from the LORD, that He might establish His word, which the LORD spoke through Ahijah the Shilonite to Jeroboam the son of Nebat” (1 Kings 12:15 NASB). That is, in God’s sovereign superintendence over the history of Israel, it served his purposes that Rehoboam provoked the people of Israel to rebellion as God’s judicial punishment against Solomon for his idolatry (1 Kings 11:9-13, 29-39).

  Sixth, the story Micaiah told to Ahab distinguishes between God and the lying spirit. God does not tell the lying spirit what to say, and therefore God does not “inspire” the lie. This is the key error in your use of this passage, since you asserted that it teaches that God inspires lies. Micaiah’s story explicitly says that the lying spirit came up with the lie (1 Kings 22:21-22a), not God. What God does, according to this passage, is to give the lying spirit permission to do his thing: “You are to entice him, and you shall succeed; go out and do so” (v. 22b).

  Seventh, this statement by the LORD in 1 Kings 22:22 is no different in principle from the Lord Jesus Christ saying to Judas Iscariot, “What you do, do quickly” (John 13:27). According to Jesus in Matthew and Mark, it had been written (in Scripture) that this was how Jesus was to be arrested, but Judas was still accountable and responsible for what he did (Matt. 26:24; Mark 14:21); Luke makes Jesus’ point clear by saying that it had been “determined”—by God, of course—that this would happen (Luke 22:22).

  Eighth, I would think a Mormon would want to consider what his own religious leaders have taught about this passage in 1 Kings 22. Robert Hale, speaking in general conference just 15 years ago, stated without qualification that Micaiah had spoken God’s word:

  

Quote

“After four hundred of Ahab’s so-called prophets told Ahab only what he wanted to hear—that he would be victorious over Syria—Jehoshaphat asked if he didn’t have any other prophets. Ahab replied, ‘There is yet one man, Micaiah … : but I hate him; for he doth not prophesy good concerning me, but evil’ (1 Kgs. 22:8; emphasis added).

  Jehoshaphat convinced Ahab to seek the word of the prophet Micaiah. The messenger who was sent to bring Micaiah before the kings cautioned Micaiah to tell Ahab only what he wanted to hear. ‘And Micaiah said, As the Lord liveth, what the Lord saith unto me, that will I speak’ (1 Kgs. 22:14; emphasis added). Micaiah told Ahab that Israel would not return victorious and that Ahab would be killed.

  Against the counsel of the prophet, Ahab went to battle, and lost his life, and Israel was defeated.

  Micaiah, as all prophets before him and all who have followed, spoke the word of God with plainness and truth and let the consequence follow.”

  Elder Robert D. Hales, “Hear the Prophet’s Voice and Obey,” Ensign (CR), May 1995, 15.

  In this instance, I think Elder Hales got it right. I see no problem with what 1 Kings 22 teaches about God. He rules as the sovereign Lord over his creation, and what happens unfolds according to his purposes; but God does not himself do evil, does not himself lie or inspire falsehood, even though he uses such things for his glory.

[maklelan]

Rob Bowman, on 29 December 2010 - 01:53 PM, said:

In his opening post in the thread entitled “On Inerrancy,” maklelan cites the account of Micaiah’s confrontation with Ahab in 1 Kings 22 as an example of the errancy of the Bible. “For instance, in 1 Kings 22 God approves of and commands a divine assembly plan to send a ‘lying spirit’ to Ahab to lead him off to his death. That is thus a God-inspired lie.” Is this correct?

Let’s start by quoting the text:

The book of Chronicles contains the same account in almost identical wording (2 Chron. 18:12-27). What minor differences in wording there are have no bearing on the theological question at hand.

First, let’s acknowledge not only that the Bible contains this report—twice—but that this is not an isolated incident. The Bible contains several examples of statements indicating that an evil, lying, or hurtful spirit was from God:

Whatever we make of these passages, it is clear that we are dealing with more than an isolated text that might have been miscopied or garbled. The Old Testament, especially in the so-called Deuteronomic history (Joshua through 2 Kings), contains several statements that fall within this same general category of references to evil or lying spirits that are said to have been in some sense from God.

True, but I don’t think it’s methodologically sound to equate a lying spirit and an evil spirit. These are two very different concepts.

Rob Bowman, on 29 December 2010 - 01:53 PM, said:

Second, we should note that this same history contains at least one statement that that denies that God lies:

Your translation is rather watered down in this verse. The text is alluding to Num 23:19, where the NASB provides a more accurate translation:

Quote

God is not a man that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should repent.

The Hebrew for “lie” is a different root in Numbers, though. The parallelism here offers an insight to the Hebrew view of lying. Rather than being analogous to evil, it just shows human weakness. It is equated with repenting. In the instance of 1 Sam 15:29, the assertion is that God’s word will come to pass. Samuel is not telling Saul that God is incapable of misleading, but that God’s vow to rend the kingdom from Saul will not fail.

Rob Bowman, on 29 December 2010 - 01:53 PM, said:

Notice that this statement comes in the same context as the report in chapter 16 that the Spirit of the LORD left Saul and was replaced by an evil spirit “from” the LORD. If we are trying to understand what the book of Samuel is saying, we need to take both types of statements into account.

But they are different concepts. The “evil spirit” only alludes to the notion that was current then that God was the source of good and evil (Isa 45:7). This text predates a dualistic theodicy. The “lying spirit,” however, simply shows Yhwh’s willingness to mislead.

Rob Bowman, on 29 December 2010 - 01:53 PM, said:

It would be ad hoc to assume they represent different sources.

Only if one made the assumption with only our particular discussion to inform it. There’s a lot of reason to be suspicious of the chapters. Look at 1 Samuel 16 and 17. In chapter 16 Saul meets David, is impressed with him, and makes him his armor-bearer. David is introduced to Saul as the son of Jesse, and when Saul summons David he sends a message to Jesse. When he wanted David to stay on with him, he again sent a message directly to Jesse. Suddenly in chapter 17 Saul doesn’t know him or his father (in fact, David is introduced all over again even to the reader!). Notice also that Samuel meets David in chapter 16 and anoints him to be king before his brothers, but in chapter 17 David’s brother Eliab doesn’t seem to have a clue about it. The Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls vary widely from MT, and neither has “lie” in 1 Sam 15:29. There’s also the problem with the assertion in v. 29 that God does not repent, since v. 35 says that God repented of having made Saul king. A quick look at David Tsumura’s 2007 NICOT of 1 Samuel explains that “the Hebrew text is widely considered corrupt and sometimes even unintelligible” (p. 1). On page 12 we read, “it is widely accepted that there were originally three major compositions prior to the final editing of 1–2 Samuel.” One of these sources is thought to begin either at 1 Sam 15 or 16, and that source is thought by many to be composite as well (the differences between chapters 16 and 17 strongly support that conclusion). Tsumura believes the main source for David’s rise runs from 1 Sam 16–31, leaving chapter 15 to another source (p. 14). Another good source on that discussion is Deitrich and Nuamann, “The David-Saul Narrative,” in Reconsidering Israel and Judah: Recent Studies in the Deuteronomistic History (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2000), 313. It would not be ad hoc to conclude there are different sources at work here, it would simply show a very informed approach to the question.

Rob Bowman, on 29 December 2010 - 01:53 PM, said:

It would be a form of lazy reading to assume without further ado that they are unthinkingly contradictory. Whoever put the book together so that these statements in 15:29 and 16:14 stand so close together did not see a problem.

I wonder if you’re familiar with the Septuagint’s deuterograph in 1 Kings 12. In 3 Reigns 12:24a–z the account of Solomon’s death, of Rehoboam’s councils, and of Jeroboam’s rise are completely retold, in a completely different way, right next to the other account. The Greek is clearly translational and points to the account in the Septuagint’s Vorlage. Neither the parent text nor the Septuagint cared that there were two vastly distinct accounts immediately following one another. We see in many instances that the people who put the biblical books together simply did not care that there were inconsistencies. You’re retrojecting a modern concern for consistency into an ancient context. Genesis 1 and 2 are completely distinct creation accounts, but they didn’t care. It’s not because they believed they were harmonious, it’s because they just didn’t care. The same is the case with the three different accounts of Sennacherib’s invasion. They just didn’t care. In Exodus 9 God kills all of Egypt’s cattle in the beginning of the chapter and then kills all of Egypt’s cattle again at the end of the chapter. The rhetorical message is what’s important to the redactors, not narrative or factual consistency.

Rob Bowman, on 29 December 2010 - 01:53 PM, said:

Third, if we read through all of these texts in their contexts, we will see consistently that the point being made is that God sovereignly works things out to bring judgment on evildoers among his people. For example, half of the passages quoted above pertain to God’s judgment on Saul, who had turned out to be a bad king. The evil or lying spirits lead people to do bad things, and the consequence is that those people or others hurt by them get what they deserve. In none of these passages does God have an evil or deceiving spirit lead righteous, humble, or sincere people into a trap.

So the notion that God cannot lie must be qualified: God can lie, but he won’t lie to you if you’re righteous.

Rob Bowman, on 29 December 2010 - 01:53 PM, said:

Fourth, in the account of Micaiah’s prophecy, it is made clear that God is not trying to hide anything from Ahab. After all, Micaiah tells Ahab about the lying spirit and warns him of the consequences of listening to it! If God was trying to deceive Ahab, why would he reveal this fact to Ahab?

You’re assuming God did do these things and that Micaiah is actually reporting his words. More likely is that the author is coming up with an explanation for why the other court prophets were promising Ahab victory when he was not victorious. In the end, Ahab didn’t believe Micaiah and did believe the lie, and it led him to his death. God was trying to deceive Ahab (unless you insist God didn’t know that Ahab wouldn’t believe Micaiah) and it worked.

Rob Bowman, on 29 December 2010 - 01:53 PM, said:

Fifth, in the broader context of these historical books, something bad or harmful is said to be “from the LORD” if he uses it to accomplish his purposes. For example, the history tells us that Rehoboam’s unwise decision not to lighten the people’s burden, as they had asked, was “from the LORD, that He might establish His word, which the LORD spoke through Ahijah the Shilonite to Jeroboam the son of Nebat” (1 Kings 12:15 NASB). That is, in God’s sovereign superintendence over the history of Israel, it served his purposes that Rehoboam provoked the people of Israel to rebellion as God’s judicial punishment against Solomon for his idolatry (1 Kings 11:9-13, 29-39).

Or in the view of the author, this is the most rhetorically helpful explanation of the events.

Rob Bowman, on 29 December 2010 - 01:53 PM, said:

Sixth, the story Micaiah told to Ahab distinguishes between God and the lying spirit. God does not tell the lying spirit what to say, and therefore God does not “inspire” the lie. This is the key error in your use of this passage, since you asserted that it teaches that God inspires lies. Micaiah’s story explicitly says that the lying spirit came up with the lie (1 Kings 22:21-22a), not God. What God does, according to this passage, is to give the lying spirit permission to do his thing: “You are to entice him, and you shall succeed; go out and do so” (v. 22b).

This is splitting hairs. God approves the lie and commands it, and the author summarizes by saying, “God has sent a lying spirit.” From the perspective of Ahab, the lie is “God-inspired.” From the perspective of the spirit who came up with the idea it may not be “God-inspired,” but the difference it utterly moot. It also conflicts with notions elsewhere in the Bible that God is the source of all good and all evil (Isa 45:7), and that God needs no counselor or advice (Isa 40:13). I don’t think you’re better off with the notion that God asked for help and someone came up with an idea that God hadn’t thought of. Either way, God’s dealings with humanity are not free from lies. If you insist on this split hair then I’m happy to emend my original statement to “God has no compunctions with allowing lies and errors into his dealings with humanity.”

Rob Bowman, on 29 December 2010 - 01:53 PM, said:

Seventh, this statement by the LORD in 1 Kings 22:22 is no different in principle from the Lord Jesus Christ saying to Judas Iscariot, “What you do, do quickly” (John 13:27).

Hardly. Christ did not ask for ideas on how to get him killed, nor did Judas ask permission. Neither did Judas come up with the idea during a council session under Jesus.

Rob Bowman, on 29 December 2010 - 01:53 PM, said:

According to Jesus in Matthew and Mark, it had been written (in Scripture) that this was how Jesus was to be arrested, but Judas was still accountable and responsible for what he did (Matt. 26:24; Mark 14:21); Luke makes Jesus’ point clear by saying that it had been “determined”—by God, of course—that this would happen (Luke 22:22).

This is nowhere near the same thing.

Rob Bowman, on 29 December 2010 - 01:53 PM, said:

Eighth, I would think a Mormon would want to consider what his own religious leaders have taught about this passage in 1 Kings 22. Robert Hale, speaking in general conference just 15 years ago, stated without qualification that Micaiah had spoken God’s word:

In this instance, I think Elder Hales got it right. I see no problem with what 1 Kings 22 teaches about God. He rules as the sovereign Lord over his creation, and what happens unfolds according to his purposes; but God does not himself do evil, does not himself lie or inspire falsehood, even though he uses such things for his glory.

My Mormonism has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not your doctrine of inerrancy is logically defensible.

Edited by maklelan, 29 December 2010 - 07:01 PM.

[Rob Bowman]

maklelan,

I've done a fair amount of work on my reply to your comments above, and on the other issues you raised. In order to do these matters justice, it will be next week before I post again here.

[Rob Bowman]

maklelan,

I just found out about the major changes coming to this discussion board and the elimination of this "pundits" forum. I'm going to have to spend some time going through various threads and making copies of various posts I need to save before they might be eliminated. Also, I would like to do a good, thorough job of researching the biblical passages you cited before commenting on them further. Therefore, you can expect that it will be some time before I am ready to continue that discussion. I will be working on those issues and will try to communicate with you about them when I am ready, whether that is here at MADB or elsewhere.

Thanks for understanding.

[maklelan]

No problem. Take your time.

[David Bokovoy]

Hello Rob,

As you prepare to respond to Mak's comments, there are a few additional points I believe you should consider.

Quote

I agree that “God-breathed” is nowhere defined as “without error.” No evangelical claims that is the definition of the meaning of the word theopneustos. Your criticism here is a straw-man objection to an argument evangelicals don’t use. What evangelicals say is that Paul’s description of Scripture as theopneustos has certain implications, including that the result of God’s action is that what Scripture says is what God says—and what God says is necessarily without error. This is because to speak of “breathing” in the context of the production of words (in Scripture) connotes the breathing out of those words; the words of Scripture are spoken by the very breath (Spirit) of God.

Yet of course Paul’s statement that scripture is “God-breathed” does not specifically support your position, i.e. that God’s word is "without error."  The term theopneustos is a hapax legomenon (appearing only once in the New Testament), making the word incredibly difficult to interpret.  The King James translation “given by inspiration from God” reflects an ancient interpretation presented in the Vulgate rendering of the word as “inspirate.”  The Greek form is passive, i.e. “scripture is God-breathed” rather than active, i.e. “scripture is God’s breath” which simply means that scripture is “inspired.”  I hope you recognize that the text itself in no way supports the assumption that “inspired” means without error.

Quote

Fifth, in the broader context of these historical books, something bad or harmful is said to be “from the LORD” if he uses it to accomplish his purposes. For example, the history tells us that Rehoboam’s unwise decision not to lighten the people’s burden, as they had asked, was “from the LORD, that He might establish His word, which the LORD spoke through Ahijah the Shilonite to Jeroboam the son of Nebat” (1 Kings 12:15 NASB). That is, in God’s sovereign superintendence over the history of Israel, it served his purposes that Rehoboam provoked the people of Israel to rebellion as God’s judicial punishment against Solomon for his idolatry (1 Kings 11:9-13, 29-39).

So in essence, it would appear that you are interpreting the prepositional phrase “from the Lord” as non-literal, i.e. metaphorical.   Yet what evidence can you provide that the author does not mean that Yahweh sent the evil spirit that troubled Saul in 1 Samuel 16:14, or that the author of 1 Kings 12:5 did not believe that Yahweh inspired Rehoboam to make his “unwise decision” in order to fulfill Yahweh's purposes?

Are we to assume, therefore, that when the Deuteronomistic History reports that a deep sleep came upon Saul’s men so that David could escape with Saul’s spear and cruse of water that God was not truly involved with the deep sleep that came “from the Lord” (1 Sam. 26:12)?  How can you support your claim that events the text describes as coming “from the Lord” are not truly “from the Lord” but merely occurrencs Yahweh uses to accomplish his will?

The Hebrew word for “deep sleep” in this passage is tardema, and as witnessed in Gen. 2:21, biblical authors clearly believed that Yahweh could be actively involved in causing a tardema to fall upon humans:

“And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof.”

Hence, I have a difficult time seeing how one could argue that the expression “from the Lord” implies that the deity was not actively involved in sending the spirit/sleep/decision/etc., and that the prepositional phrase denotes a purely metaphorical construct describing a happening that the Lord simply uses to “accomplish his purposes.”

Quote

Sixth, the story Micaiah told to Ahab distinguishes between God and the lying spirit. God does not tell the lying spirit what to say, and therefore God does not “inspire” the lie. This is the key error in your use of this passage, since you asserted that it teaches that God inspires lies. Micaiah’s story explicitly says that the lying spirit came up with the lie (1 Kings 22:21-22a), not God. What God does, according to this passage, is to give the lying spirit permission to do his thing: “You are to entice him, and you shall succeed; go out and do so” (v. 22b).

This reading of the divine council story in 1 Kings 22 is highly problematic.  

The proposal you have suggested ignores the historical pattern and religious conceptions associated with this type of text.  In the ancient Near East, stories of the divine council typically begin with a crisis in which the head God calls together the gods of the council to resolve the dilemma. During the council, a series of proposals are offered. Finally, a representative/messenger/savior steps forward, offering his services to the council. The council member then receives a commission from the high God to perform his assignment. (This summary is based upon the pattern identified by Simon B. Parker, "Council," in Dictionary of Deities and Demons, 391—98; for a consideration of the divine council stories within the Bible as "type scenes," see David Marron Fleming, "The Divine Council as Type Scene in the Hebrew Bible" (Ph.D. diss., The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1989).

This common Near Eastern pattern is seen, for example, in the Mesopotamian story of divine kingship known as Enuma Elish. In this Babylonian myth, the head god of the pantheon calls together the gods in a council to resolve a dilemma created by the goddess Tiamat. Following a series of proposals, Marduk, the chief god of Babylon, receives a commission as savior. Marduk agrees to perform the role of savior on the condition that his father, Ea, the head god of the council, grant Marduk all power and glory. The same pattern appears in the Assyrian myth of Anzu. However, in this version, the god Ninurta agrees to serve as council savior while allowing his father to retain his position within the council.

The story of the “lying spirit” in 1 Kings 22 perfectly follows this historic pattern and must be taken into consideration when interpreting Micaiah’s throne theophany. Indeed, as biblical scholar Rolf Knierim once illustrated, from an ancient Near Eastern perspective, a throne theophany or vision specifically symbolized that a judgment was about to be rendered by the divine council, either against an individual or a nation/group; see “The Vocation of Isaiah,” Vetus Testamentum; vol. 18 (1968): 47-68.  Micaiah's vision presents an occasion in which the council met in order to determine the means of the demise of an already condemned king of Israel.  The vision does not present the actual death sentence, but rather an exploration of the means and the opportunity for the death of the king.  

Following the pattern for this “type scene,” the council met in judgment to consider the “crisis” created by Ahab’s apostasy.  Various proposals were then considered: “And one said on this manner, and another said on that manner” (v. 20).  The “lying spirit” then stepped forward offering his services to Yahweh and his council.  The false revelation was therefore commissioned by Yahweh himself, a fact made clear by the text itself through Yahweh’s question, “Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead” (v. 20).  Hence, though you’re correct in stating that “God does not tell the spirit what to say,”  the lying spirit is clearly commissioned by Yahweh in the council drama to give a false revelation in order to fulfill Yahweh’s will that Ahab go forth to battle and suffer defeat.

The account reflects the well-established biblical/Near Eastern tradition of a king seeking a prophetic oracle prior to going into battle.  Since Ahab would seek such an oracle/revelation from Yahweh, Yahweh commissioned the lying spirit to deliver a false revelation.  Hence, Mac is clearly correct to draw attention to this pericope as evidence against the evangelical view of inerrancy.

Quote

Seventh, this statement by the LORD in 1 Kings 22:22 is no different in principle from the Lord Jesus Christ saying to Judas Iscariot, “What you do, do quickly” (John 13:27). According to Jesus in Matthew and Mark, it had been written (in Scripture) that this was how Jesus was to be arrested, but Judas was still accountable and responsible for what he did (Matt. 26:24; Mark 14:21); Luke makes Jesus’ point clear by saying that it had been “determined”—by God, of course—that this would happen (Luke 22:22).

In reality, once one understands biblical conceptions regarding the divine council, the distinction between Judas Iscariot in the New Testament and the lying spirit in 1 Kings 22 could not be more profound.  Unlike the lying spirit commissioned by Yahweh to convince Ahab to go to war, Jesus did not commission Judas to commit his betrayal.  

Best,

--DB

[The_Monk]

Mike Heiser has some writings on this topic. He says, " God does use deception.  Some of you no doubt will want to define lying so that it includes deception, but that is not only unwise, it puts you (and God) in a theological pickle."


http://michaelsheise...3/does-god-lie/




http://michaelsheise...-and-deception/